IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 158 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2021 IN OP(KAT) NO.41/2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
SHYBA T.,
AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.OMANA,
CASUAL SWEEPER (ON FIXED REMUNERATION),
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (BUILDING SECTION),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIROOR, THRIKANIDYOOR (PO),
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 104. RESIDING AT
THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, NIRAMARETHOOR (PO), CHAKKARAMOOLA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 104.
BY ADVS.
M.V.THAMBAN
R.REJI
THARA THAMBAN
B.BIPIN
ARUN BOSE
SUNEESH KUMAR R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 SRI.ANAND SINGH IAS,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
WORKING AS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 SMT.MADHUMATHI K.R.,
WORKING AS THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER(PWD), THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695003.
Con. Case (C) No.158 of 2022 2
3 IBRAHIM,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BUILDING SUB DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
PARAPPANANGADI (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676303,KERALA.
4 SRI.SIRAJ,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (BUILDING SECTION),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIROOR, THRIKANDIYOOR(PO),
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676104.
5 SRI.RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
WORKING AS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS-SR.GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con. Case (C) No.158 of 2022 3
ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.158 of 2022
[arising out of judgment dated 01.02.2021 in O.P.(KAT) No.41/2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The above contempt of court case has been filed alleging non- compliance of the directions issued by this Court as per Anx.I judgment dated 01.02.2021, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in O.P. (KAT) No.41 of 2020.
2. Heard Sri.M.V. Thamban, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein and Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the 2nd respondent-Chief Engineer, has already filed an affidavit dated 16.05.2022, along with the documents, stating the steps taken for compliance of the directions of Anx.I judgment of this Court and further that, it is stated therein that, even if the plinth area in question is also to be included in the measurements, still the total sweeping area does not Con. Case (C) No.158 of 2022 4 come to the minimum threshold of 100 square meters. In that regard, the learned Senior Government Pleader also submits that the 2 nd respondent Chief Engineer has filed an affidavit dated 16.05.2022, in compliance with the orders of this Court, and that the said affidavit would disclose that even if the plinth area in question has been reckoned for measuring the sweeping area and even thereafter, the total sweeping area comes to less than 100 square meters and therefore the petitioner herein (casual sweeper) is not eligible for regularisation in terms of the G.O.(P) dated 25.11.2005, and further that, the competent authority of the State Government in the Public Works Department has already issued G.O.(Rt.) No.544/2021/PWD dated 31.05.2021, in compliance of the directions of this Court as per Anx.I judgment, and has rejected the claim of the petitioner (casual sweeper) for regularisation in terms of the abovesaid G.O.(P) dated 25.11.2005.
4. The petitioner has contested the correctness of the abovesaid factual submissions made by the respondent officer.
5. However, we have made it clear that if there is any dispute regarding these factual aspects, then it will not be feasible for adjudicating such issues in contempt proceedings and that the remedy would be, for the petitioner, to initiate further proceedings to challenge the abovesaid rejection decision.
Con. Case (C) No.158 of 2022 5
6. In the light of these aspects, Sri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that liberty may be accorded to the petitioner to challenge the abovesaid rejection order of the Government.
7. Accordingly, the submissions of both sides are recorded and liberty is accorded to the petitioner to challenge the rejection of her claim by the State Government, through the issuance of G.O.(Rt.) No.544/2021/PWD dated 31.05.2021, etc. With the said liberty, the above contempt of court case will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE Skk//09062022 Con. Case (C) No.158 of 2022 6 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 158/2022 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01/02/2021 IN OP(KAT) NO.41/2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 19/02/2021 OF THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL